Two Turtledoves (Luke 2:24)

What did Mary and Joseph offer as a sacrifice at the time of purification? A pair of turtledoves and two young pigeons (Luke 2:24)

The Gospel of Luke diligently documents the obedience of the infant Jesus’ parents (Luke 2:21-24). On the eighth day, Jesus is circumcised and formally given the name that is above all names (Luke 2:21). The third gospel also records that the baby is presented at the temple (Luke 2:21-38).

While there, Jesus’ earthly parents provide the requisite offerings as dictated by the Old Testament’s statutes (Luke 2:22-24).

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (Luke 2:22-24 NASB)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) asks:

Why did Luke describe the sacrifice [Luke 2:22-24]? Was it purely for historical reasons? Was it to demonstrate that Joseph and Mary obeyed the law? Or was it because he expected his readers to know that according to Leviticus 12:8 the normal sacrifice involved a lamb and a dove or pigeon and thus to understand that Joseph and Mary were of a “humble state” (Luke 1:48), i.e. too poor to be able to afford a lamb? Certainty is impossible, but the latter explanation fits well with the Lukan emphasis in Luke 1:48, 52-53, 2:8. That Mary offered a dove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6) for her purification indicates that the mother of God’s Son also needed the forgiveness and redemption that her son brought. (The description of Mary’s offering also suggests that Joseph and Mary were not yet in possession of the rich gifts of the wise men mentioned in Matthew 2:11, i.e., the wise men had not yet come. Cf. also Matthew 2:7, 16.) (Stein, Luke (New American Commentary), 114)

Luke specifies that Jesus’ parents, in accordance with the “law of Moses”, offer a pair of “turtledoves” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV)/“doves” (CEV, MSG, NIV) or “young pigeons” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (Luke 2:24).

The Greek terms are unambiguous. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) delineates:

λευγος (Luke 14:19) is a ‘pair’, originally a ‘yoke’. νοσσός is the ‘young of a bird’, and περιτέρα (Luke 3:22) ‘pigeon, dove’. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 18)

A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) relates:

“A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (λευγος τρυγόνων ἢ δύο νοσσοὺς περιστερων) [Luke 2:24]... is the offering of the poor, costing about sixteen cents, while a lamb would cost nearly two dollars. The “young of pigeons” is the literal meaning. (Robertson (revised and updated by Wesley J. Perschbacher [1932-2012]), The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures in the New Testament), 43)

While Luke apparently alludes to the Old Testament, it is uncertain precisely what the gospel has in mind. S.G. Wilson (b. 1942) acknowledges:

Despite the specific quotations from Exodus 13:2, 12; Leviticus 12:2ff, Luke’s narrative is not wholly clear. (Wilson, Luke and the Law, 21)

It cannot even be certain if Luke attempts to cite the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint though the latter likely influences the gospel’s manuscript. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) reveals:

Luke derives most of the wording of this prescription [Luke 2:22-24] from the Septuagint of Leviticus 12:8, which speaks of “two turtledoves or two young pigeons.” The turtledove, of which three varieties are known in Palestine, is a small type of pigeon. The two species of birds are often linked in Old Testament stipulations about animal sacrifices. Here the implication is that Mary offered these animals because she (or Joseph) could not afford the one-year old lamb for the whole burnt offering. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), 426)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) presumes:

The citations of the law do not follow the Greek (Septuagint) text, and we may reasonably assume that Luke’s language here reflects the report of his informants, possibly in a condensed form. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 46)

John Nolland (b. 1947) adds:

No close parallel has been offered for the idiom δουναι θυσίαν [Luke 2:23] (literally, “give a sacrifice”; cf. Psalm 51:17). τὸ εἰρημένον, “what is said” [Luke 2:24], is Lukan (Acts 2:16, 13:40) and not Septuagintal. (Nolland, (Luke 1-9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary), 118)

Some interpreters have seen Luke as having a single regulation in mind (Luke 2:22-24). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) pronounces:

The sacrifice [Luke 2:24] is not for the redemption of the firstborn, but for the purification of the mother. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), 426)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) concurs:

Luke reverts to the cleansing of the mother [Luke 2:24], which was effected by the sacrifice of a lamb with a young pigeon or turtledove as a burnt offering and a sin offering respectively (Leviticus 12:6); Joseph and Mary, however, being poor, availed themselves of the concession to offer two doves or pigeons (Leviticus 12:8; the wording is closer to Leviticus 5:11 where the similar sacrifice for unwitting sin is described; cf. Leviticus 14:22; Numbers 6:10). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 117-18)

Others have seen the third gospel as conflating multiple ordinances (Luke 2:22-24). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) encapsulates:

Luke 2:22-24 telescopes at least two traditional Jewish practices prescribed by the law. Luke 2:22a, 24 reflect the practice of the purification of the mother after childbirth, following the directives of Leviticus 12:6, 8...Luke 2:22b, 23, however, echo Exodus 13:2, 12, 13, 15 where it is said the firstborn belongs to God and must be redeemed (cf. Mishna, Bekhoroth, 8). (Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, 37)

John T. Carroll (b. 1954) upholds:

In this unit [Luke 2:22-24] Luke fuses two discrete ritual observances. After childbirth the mother (not both parents) would participate in a rite of purification that includes the offering of a lamb and either a pigeon or turtledove—or, if the woman’s poverty requires less, two pigeons or turtledoves—after seven days of ritual impurity and the boy’s circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:2-8). The narrator seems to connect this sacrificial offering to the presentation of Jesus as firstborn son (cf. Exodus 13:2, 11-16), rather than to the mother’s purification. In an account that reproduces with precision neither the liturgical acts nor their legal basis, the literary arrangement provides a clue to meaning. The two rituals are fused in a chiastic arrangement that places the presentation of Jesus—as firstborn son, “holy to the Lord” [Luke 2:23]—at the center of the unit and the sacrificial offering of two birds at the end [Luke 2:24]. (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 75)

Part of the interpretive difficulty stems from the use of the plural pronoun “their” as opposed to the singular “her” (Luke 2:22). John Reumann (1927-2008) chastises:

In Luke 2:22 he speaks of “their purification,” seemingly thinking that both parents were purified, when the custom referred only to the mother [Leviticus 12:2-8]. Also, he seems to think (incorrectly) that the Law required the presentation of the firstborn at the Temple. In Luke 2:24 Luke describes the doves or pigeons as a gift on the occasion of the presentation, when according to Leviticus 12:6 they were the gift prescribed for the purification. See Heikke Räisänen [b. 1941], Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament, 125-27; Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], The Birth of the Messiah, 447-51. (Brown [1928-1998], Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940], Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] and Reumann, Mary in the New Testament, 111)

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) recognizes:

The only puzzling point in Luke’s version of the purification is the initial reference to “their” purification [Luke 2:22], since only the mother required such a ritual. There really is no way to get around the awkwardness of that pronoun, other than to recognize it in the context of Luke’s description of the pilgrimage as involving the whole family. One might even see the plural pronoun as affirming that upon the completion of this obligation, the whole family would be ready to resume its life after the dramatic intervention of the birth of the baby. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 45)

Barbara E. Reid (b. 1953) discusses:

These verses [Luke 2:22-24] are confusing in the use of “their” and “they” without antecedents. Presumably, “their purification” [Luke 2:22] refers to Mary and Joseph, but in Jewish law purification was specified only for the woman (Leviticus 12:2-8). Some commentators have understood “their” as referring to Mary and Jesus, but there was no requirement of purification for a newborn. Since the main verb anēgagon [Luke 2:22], “they took him up,” refers to Mary and Joseph, it is best to take “their purification” as referring to Mary and Joseph as well. The inaccuracy about who was required to undergo purification is usually explained as Luke’s mistake, due to his being a non-Palestinian Gentile Christian, unfamiliar with the intricacies of Jewish law. When today we are concerned for gender equality, we might smile at Luke’s unwitting inclusivity of Joseph in a ritual intended for women. (Reid, Choosing the Better Part?: Women in the Gospel of Luke, 86-87)

E.J. Tinsley (1919-1992) laments:

It is a pity that the use of the word purification [Luke 2:22] has suggested the notion that sexual processes are necessarily unseemly. Significantly in this passage the majority of manuscripts have ‘their’ purification so as to reduce the direct reference to the mother of Jesus needing purification made in those manuscripts which read ‘her’ purification. (Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament), 41)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) rationalizes:

The text refers to “their” sacrifice [Luke 2:22], which seems odd at first glance in that a purification offering would normally be Mary’s alone. However, seeing that Joseph undoubtedly helped in Mary’s delivery at the distant town, he was also rendered unclean and needed to make a sacrifice for himself (Mishnah Niddah 5.1, 2.5, 1.3-5). Another possibility is that Luke is alluding in Luke 2:22 to all the sacrifices involved in the three ceremonies and that those offerings, some hers and others theirs, are combined. All these sacrifices indicate how seriously Judaism took approaching God in worship and how prepared a heart and soul one should have as they address God. (Bock, Luke (NIV Application Commentary))

While the precise regulation the gospel intends to indicate is unclear, it is undeniable that Luke holds the Old Testament tradition in the highest regard. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) reviews:

A survey of the Lukan materials indicates that Luke did not transfer cultic language from the temple to the church, as though he wished to imply that the church was now the proper locus of the cult...Neither does Luke spiritualize the idea of offering (προσψορά, δωρον) or sacrifice (θυσία), nor does he use such language to describe the Christian life. The language of sacrifice is employed literally, and is often employed in the context of the temple cult. When it is found in this context, it is presented in a positive light (Luke 2:24, 5:14, 21:1-4; Acts 21:26, 24:17). Explicitly negative attitudes revolve around the cultic items only in the context of the Stephen speech (Acts 7:41-42), where Stephen is describing the idolatrous incident of the golden calf (Acts 7:41) and the lack of a sacrificial cult during Israel’s period of desert wanderings (Acts 7:42). The latter reference can hardly be understood as Luke’s rejection of all sacrifice and offering, given Acts 21:26 and Acts 24:17 where Paul’s participation in the Jewish cult is viewed as an act of true piety. (Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts, 36)

There are problematic theological ramifications if Luke alludes to the redeeming of the firstborn (Exodus 13:13-16; Luke 2:22-24). Justo L. González (b. 1937) observes:

Curiously, Luke tells us that the Redeemer has to be redeemed, has to be bought back [Luke 2:22-24]. This is not because he has sinned, but simply because he is a firstborn, and all the firstborn in Israel belong to God [Exodus 13:13-16]. The theme of the Passover as a type of Jesus...appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament, with several layers of meaning. The paschal lamb that was sacrificed [Exodus 12:1-13] is a type of Jesus. Jesus himself is the new Passover, for in him God shows mercy to us. According to Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels [Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7,8, 11, 13, 15], the last meal of Jesus with his disciples before the crucifixion is a paschal meal. It is there that he instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. Here, at the presentation in the temple, another Passover theme appears: Jesus the firstborn is to be redeemed by the sacrifice of two turtledoves [Luke 2:24], and he will then redeem all humankind by his own sacrifice. (González, Luke (Belief: a Theological Commentary on the Bible), 42)

Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) counters:

The narrative [Luke 2:23-24] associates the purification of the mother after seven days with the offering prescribed for the firstborn, normally carried out through payment to a local priest...Nothing is said here of such a “redemption” of Jesus; instead he is received into the service of God (in which he will redeem others: Mark 10:45, not used by Luke). Perhaps there is also an echo of I Samuel 1:11, 22-28. There, however, the mother dedicates her child to God, whereas here God sets the child apart for service through the agency of a prophet. Thus a prescribed ritual takes on new meaning as a kind of “presentation” of the newborn child. (Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 55)

The theological implications of the offering effect the parents as well as the child. Based upon its presumed necessity, it could be inferred that Mary and Joseph are sinners. As such, the only sinless man (Hebrews 4:15) is raised by sinners.

This issue has been debated for centuries. Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) presents:

It wasn’t the Holy Family’s finances...that drew the most attention from readers [Luke 2:22-24], but the fact that Mary offered what was understood as a “sin” offering. Such an action raised a host of questions about Mary’s nature. Was the mother of the Christ a “normal” woman? Did she menstruate? Did she bleed when giving birth to Jesus? In either of these cases, Leviticus 12:1-8 and 15:1-33 would have labeled Mary ceremonially “unclean.” In the early centuries following Jesus’ death, however, Christian communities claimed that Mary was “more than” other women. As this happened, such “normal” aspects of female physicality such as menstruation and parturition became the objects of controversy. For example, while some thought that Mary’s piety exempted her from the “normal” pain of childbirth, others insisted that even Mary’s hymen was left intact after Jesus’ birth! (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and Robert A. Kugler, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception, 440)

This topic is of special concern within Catholicism. John F. MacArthur (b. 1939) criticizes:

That Mary offered a sin offering is consistent with the reality that she was a sinner in need of a Savior (cf. Luke 1:47). The Catholic dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life finds no support in Scripture. (MacArthur, Luke 1-5 (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary), 171)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) analyzes:

A...serious issue arose concerning the sin offering Mary offered in Luke 2:24. The dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception insisted that Mary was without sin. If this was the case then why would she need to be purified? How could the birth of the Savior render his mother unclean? As Mary’s visit to Jerusalem for her purification became immortalized in the church’s festival of Candlemas, focus on her purity was kept cultically alive each calendar year...Perhaps one of the most well-conceived medieval treatments of Mary’s presentation to Leviticus 12:1-8 is found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]. In his Summa Theologica, he addressed Luke 2:21-24, Leviticus 12:1-8, and Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity...“As Gregory of Nyssa [335-394] says (De Occursu Domini): It seems that this precept of Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual unison, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate. Consequently the words opening the womb imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for special reason it is written “a male,” because He contracted nothing of the woman’s sin: and in a singular way is He called ‘holy’ because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate (Ambrose [337-397], on Luke 2:23).”...In both cases—her perpetual virginity and her sinlessness—Aquinas felt it necessary to defend Mary’s actions in Luke 2:21-24 in light Leviticus 12:1-8’s association with impurity. Nor was such concern solely the purview of theologians like Aquinas. A similar point of view can be found in the liturgy of a mid-eleventh century Bavarian Candlemas ceremony...For historians like Joanne M. Pierce [b. 1955], this rite, with its imperative to let Mary “be a model for us” exemplifies how the Feast of Candlemas connected the themes of Mary and purification while at the same time exhorting women to follow Mary’s example. (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and Robert A. Kugler, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception, 440-43)

Given the problematic nature of including these offerings, the passage’s historicity is bolstered (Luke 2:22-24). Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) affirms:

The record of the offerings [Luke 2:21-24] is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed not to bring the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. (Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 65)

For Luke, these theological issues are likely not at the forefront: The intent is not to discredit Jesus’ parents but rather to present them as pious Jews. Luke depicts them faithfully following three prescribed rituals: circumcision (Luke 2:22), purification (Luke 2:2) and dedication (Luke 2:23-24).

Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) praises:

The story falls into three parts: the framing story (Luke 2:22-24, 39-40), into which are inserted the response of Simeon (Luke 2:25-35) and the response of Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The framing story itself has one governing focus: Jesus grew up in a family that meticulously observed the law of Moses. No fewer than five times in this text Luke tells the reader that they did everything required in the law. Later in life Jesus would be in tension with some interpreters of his tradition, but his position would not be that of an outsider. On the contrary, Jesus’ own nurture in his tradition prepared him to oppose flawed and hollow practices in the name of the law of Moses. (Luke, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 38)

David L. Tiede (b. 1940) agrees:

By mentioning the law in each of these three verses [Luke 2:22-24], he also stresses that proper temple observance is obedience to the will of God. The word law here means the text of Scripture, and it may also be understood to refer to God’s theocratic rule. The term is unequivocally positive in this context. (Tiede, Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 74)

Michael Card (b. 1957) supports:

Within the scope of six verses, the observance of the “law” is mentioned four times. This is a picture of Mary and Joseph’s exacting observance of the law. Of the nine times the word law occurs in Luke’s writing, five of them are contained in this passage [Luke 2:22, 23, 24, 27, 39]. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 51)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) determines:

Luke is making it clear that Jesus’ parents are not spiritual renegades, but Jews who are sensitive and faithful to the Mosaic law—a point reinforced in Luke 2:40-52, when they will make their customary annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. All the persons surrounding Jesus at his birth have a heritage of devotion to God. The testimony to Jesus stands on the shoulders of a series of highly respectable figures. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 58)

God places his child into a devout home which values the precepts set forth in the Old Testament. Significantly, Jesus raised in a religious household.

Why do Mary and Joseph follow these religious observances when their circumstances are so different from the regulations’ intent (Luke 2:22-24)? What does it say of God that Jesus is inserted into a family that attempts to follow Jewish law? How closely do you live out your religious beliefs? Were you reared in a religious home? Do you think God would entrust your household with Jesus? What does their offering say of Mary and Joseph? What do your offerings speak of you?

In addition to their obedience, the text sheds light on Jesus’ parents’ tax bracket: Their offering puts their financial status on display as the majority of interpreters have seen Mary and Joseph invoking a provision that makes allowances in hardship cases (Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:22-24).

G. Johannes Botterweck (1917-1981) reads:

In the sacrifice offered for the purification of a woman who has given birth, a year-old lamb is brought to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6). Here...an indigence clause (Leviticus 12:8; cf. Luke 2:24) commutes the year-old lamb to the burnt offering of two turtledoves or young pigeons (cf. Leviticus 1:14, 5:7, 14:22; [Leviticus15:30]). (Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012], Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume VI, 39)

Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) explicates:

The quotation [Luke 2:24] is from Leviticus 12:8, which concerns the sacrifice of purification for the woman, not the redemption of the firstborn. The woman was to offer a lamb and a pigeon or dove (Leviticus 12:6), or two doves or pigeons if she was poor (Leviticus 12:8). We have incidental evidence here that Joseph and Mary belong to the lower economic classes. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 29)

William Barclay (1907-1978) envisions:

The offering of the two pigeons instead of the lamb [Luke 2:24] and the pigeon was technically called the Offering of the Poor. It was the offering of the poor which Mary brought. Again we see that it was into an ordinary home that Jesus was born, a home where there were no luxuries, a home where the cost of everything had to be considered carefully, a home where the members of the family knew all about the difficulties of making a living and the haunting insecurity of life. When life is worrying for us we must remember that Jesus knew what the difficulties of making ends meet can be. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible), 30)

Walter Pilgrim (b. 1934) evaluates:

There are...several features in the actual birth story of Jesus which emphasize the lowly social status of his family. The offering they bring for the purification of Mary, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, is that prescribed for the poor (Luke 2:22-24). The rich offered a lamb. This tells us that though Joseph was an artisan [Matthew 13:55] and so belonged to the middle class, his actual economic situation was something less. Perhaps even the lack of room for them in Bethlehem may imply their inability to pay enough [Luke 2:7]. The entire story of the manger birth evokes a sense of God’s activity in the midst of earthly poverty. (Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts, 79-80)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) substantiates:

From Luke 2:24 it is clear that Joseph and Mary offered the offering of the poor, an offering that identifies them with the very people whom Christ portrays himself as saving (Luke 1:52, 4:18-19, 6:20; Heinrich Greeven [1906-1990] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 6:69; Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 1988:62). However, it should not be concluded from this that Joseph lived in abject poverty, since he had a trade as a carpenter (William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 1978:165; Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] 1896:65; Mark 6:3). The lamb seems to have been offered only by the fairly wealthy. It is quite possible that Jesus’ parents bought their offering in the temple courts (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1977:437; Luke 19:45-48). (Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 235)

Origen (184-253) approves:

It seems wonderful that the sacrifice of Mary was not the first offering, that is, “a lamb a year old,” but the second, since “she could not afford” the first [Leviticus 12:6-8]. For as it was written about her, Jesus’ parents came “to offer a sacrifice” for him, “according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.’” [Luke 2:24] But this also shows the truth of what was written, that Jesus Christ “although he was rich, became a poor man” [II Corinthians 8:9]. Therefore, for this reason, he chose both a poor mother, from whom he was born, and a poor homeland, about which it is said, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephratha, who are little to be among the clans of Judah [Micah 5:2],” and the rest. Homilies on Leviticus 8.4.3. (Arthur A. Just [b. 1953], Luke (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 47-48)

The public indication is that Mary and Joseph cannot afford the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24). Thus, though Jesus’ family is not destitute, they are hardly wealthy in monetary terms.

Luke’s notice of the parents’ offerings complies with the third gospel’s emphasis on the poor. Leon Morris (1914-2006) contextualizes:

Jesus came to preach the gospel to the poor (Luke 4:18), and Luke reports a blessing on the poor (Luke 6:20 by contrast there is a woe for the rich, Luke 6:24), whereas Matthew speaks of ‘the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5:3). Preaching good news to the poor is characteristic of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 7:22). The shepherds to whom the angels came (Luke 2:8ff) were from a poor class. Indeed the family of Jesus himself seems to have been poor, for the offering made at the birth of the child was that of the poor (Luke 2:24; cf. Leviticus 12:8). In general Luke concerns himself with the interests of the poor (Luke 1:53, 6:30, 14:11-13, 21, 16:19ff.). (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 45)

Jesus will maintain this economic status throughout his life. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) follows:

Was Jesus himself economically disadvantaged? Sentimental pictures have been painted of his lowly beginnings in a stable, as though he were homeless, but these are based on misreadings of the Lukan narrative. Luke 2:1-7 portrays a small town swelled by the requirements of the Roman-instigated census. As Bethlehem probably had no public inns, Luke envisages a near-eastern peasant home in which family and animals slept in one enclosed space, with the animals located on a lower level. Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that, upon his birth, the baby was placed in a feeding trough...More to the point is the sacrifice offered by Jesus’s parents in Luke 2:24: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” – according to Leviticus 12:8 the prescribed offering for those unable to afford a yearling lamb. Furthermore, in his Galilean ministry Jesus is said to depend on the support of others (Luke 8:1-3), Later, on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus says of himself that he has no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), presumably an assertion about his lack of a home, but surely also a warning concerning the rejection to be expected of those who follow in his footsteps. (Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, 112-13)

Jesus emanates from a blue collar family; he will be raised in a humble home (Luke 1:48). This serves as a reminder that he comes to save all, not merely the privileged of society.

J. Ellsworth Kalas (b. 1928) and David J. Kalas (b. 1962) understand:

God...communicated in humanly understandable terms when he chose to have his special Son raised in a home like many others. He did not grow up in a wealthy home. We can tell Mary and Joseph were persons of small means by the humble thank-offering they brought to the Temple — i.e.. “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). A well-to-do family might have offered a lamb. We can also tell that Jesus grew up in a good, law-abiding home. His parents showed respect for the sacred laws by bringing their son to the Temple on the proscribed eighth day for the required ritual of dedication called circumcision [Luke 2:21]. (Kalas, Kalas, Frank G. Honeycutt [b. 1957], Stephen M. Crotts [b. 1950] and R. Robert Cueni [b. 1942], “God Communicates In Humanly Understandable Terms”, Sermons on the Gospel Readings: Series 1, Cycle C, 47)

Mary and Joseph amount to Jesus’ godparents in that they are selected to raise God’s son. God could have chosen anyone for this task and yet a humble family from lowly Galilee is the family that is given the responsibility. In Luke’s text, their obedience, not economic status, is emphasized as Mary and Joseph’s observance of the law is made explicit, while their economic standing remains implicit (Luke 2:22-24). This speaks volumes of God’s priorities.

Do you think Mary and Joseph wished that they could pay the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24)? How would you characterize your own economic status? Would you want your financial records and giving patterns publicly available at your church? If this policy was still practiced, how would it effect giving? Should church giving be recommended on a sliding scale rather than a flat rate (such as tithing)? Is Jesus’ concern for the poor in any way self serving as he himself would likely qualify? If forced to leave your children to someone, who would it be; would you choose a rich or poor family? Would economic standing be a primary consideration? Does Luke emphasize Jesus’ parents’ spiritual or monetary status? Which do you spend more time enhancing, your spiritual life or your financial portfolio?

“We may see the small Value God has for Riches, by the People he gives them to.” -Alexander Pope (1688-1744), Thoughts on Various Subjects, 1727

A Tale of Two Houses (I Kings 7:1)

How many years did it take Solomon to complete work on his palace? Thirteen years (I Kings 7:1)

King Solomon ushers in unprecedented opulence as he undertakes two monumental building projects, Yahweh’s temple and his palace. Conspicuously sandwiched between accounts of the building of the temple (I Kings 6:1-38) and its furnishings (I Kings 7:13-51) is a description of Solomon’s royal complex (I Kings 7:1-12).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) connects:

The proximity of the temple and royal palace reflects the intimate association between the Davidic king and YHWH, who is consistently portrayed with royal imagery in the ideology of the Judean state. The Davidic king is authorized to rule by the creator G-d, YHWH (II Samuel 7; Psalm 89, 110, 132, cf. Psalm 2), and the worship of YHWH is authorized by the Davidic king, who erects the sanctuary for YHWH’s honor. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

The palace’s propinquity to the temple seems to be as close geographically as it is literarily. Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note:

The palace appears to have been built alongside the Temple, to its south, on the acropolis. The juxtaposing of palace and temple was established by the Canaanites early in the second millennium B.C.E., probably by 2000 in North Syria (e.g., Alalakh, a Syrian city-state). (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 203)

The discussion of Solomon’s palace begins with a notice of the project’s duration (I Kings 7:1).

Now Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house (I Kings 7:1 NASB)

Solomon’s “house” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “palace” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) is actually comprised of multiple buildings. Marvin A. Sweeney(b. 1953) outlines:

I Kings 7:1 discusses the time taken to build the temple complex. The complex includes five buildings: the house of the forest of Lebanon (I Kings 7:2-5), the hall of columns (I Kings 7:6), the hall of the throne or the hall of justice (I Kings 7:7), and the private quarters of Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings 7:8). I Kings 7:9-11 discusses construction details common to these buildings, and I Kings 7:12 discusses the surrounding courtyard. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

Burke O. Long (b. 1938) classifies I Kings 7:1-12:

The unit is a REPORT...made up of a series of brief reports dealing with specific details according to a clear schematic style. The form of the brief reports, and of the whole which is an aggregate of these parts, is clearly paralleled in priestly materials in the Old Testament. (Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 89)

The palace’s architecture was typical of royals of the era. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) encapsulates:

Solomon’s “palace” was a complex of six structures just south of the Temple. Its layout followed the so-called bit-hilani plan, an architectural style typical of palace-complexes in northern Syria. Archaeologists have found two “palaces” of this type built by Solomon at biblical Megiddo. Basically, the design featured a series of buildings centered on a long, large assembly hall whose entry was in its broad side through a portico with pillars...I Kings 7:1-5 describe the main building, I Kings 7:6-9 the satellite structures. We cannot be certain whether all the buildings in Solomon’s palace structurally were joined to each other. In the ancient world, palace-complexes typically covered many acres, and this royal center was no exception. (Hubbard, First & Second Kings: Everyman’s Bible Commentary, 46)

Despite its grandeur no archaeological evidence of Solomon’s palace has been unearthed. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) documents:

No remains have been linked to the palace of Solomon at Jerusalem. Remains of palaces are evident in their size, layout, elaborate decorations, and contents, such as expensive furniture and state archives. The ground plans of buildings at Megiddo from Solomon’s time are similar to the palaces at Zinjirli (the ancient Aramean city of Sam’al), suggesting that this may have been the plan of the Jerusalem palace. Walls and towers surround the three palaces and storehouses; to enter the complex it was necessary to pass through two gates. Solomon develops a similar complex at Jerusalem, where the citadel encloses a number of buildings. (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 119)

No archaeological confirmation is needed to determine that Solomon resided in quarters fit for a king.

Why is the account of the palace inserted between details about the temple? What are the longest building projects of which you are aware? If you could build your dream house without financial restraints, what would it entail? Is the palace more a wise investment for the nation or a vanity project for its king? Is there any way in which Solomon’s palace glorifies God?

Strikingly, the note regarding the palace’s thirteen year construction (I Kings 7:1) immediately follows a formal summary statement of the building of temple which specifies that the temple took only seven years to complete (I Kings 6:38).

Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) comments:

Whereas the final verse of chapter 6 [I Kings 6:38] functions as both a climax and a statement of completion, the narrator introduces chapter 7 with a seemingly deliberate literary contrast. Whereas it took seven years to build the house of the Lord, it takes thirteen years to build the house of a king. Although thirteen is not a number used frequently in the biblical texts, it too may be used symbolically to indicate completion (ten and three). The unusual character of the number may be a literary device that the authors use to subtly imply some inappropriateness related to the king’s palace. The fact that it takes almost twice as long to build the king’s house as it does to build the Lord’s house can imply that the king’s house was not worked on by as many builders, or with as much zeal as was the Lord’s house. Or, it could imply that the grandeur of the Lord’s house paled beside the grandeur of the king’s. If the latter is true, the text is hinting at future difficulties. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 33)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) observes:

Chapter 7...turns attention away from the temple and unexpectedly fixes upon another of Solomon’s building projects, the palace complex. The introduction to this description, reporting that the palace complex took thirteen years to build, contrasts sharply with the conclusion to chapter 6 reporting that the temple was a seven-year project. Initial impressions might argue that the temple was this king’s priority. Thus it received most attention and was completed speedily and first. However, the brief sketch (I Kings 7:2-12) of the state buildings and the king’s own house challenges such easy assumptions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 68)

The contrast between the two projects is drawn intentionally. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) asserts:

The NIV suggests the nature of the connection between I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 and the force of the transition from one to the other, but it does not fully capture it. A translation that better brings out the relationship between them, and particularly the significance of the word order, runs as follows: “He completed (khl) the temple (bayit)...he spent seven years building it (bnh). But his own house (bêtô) Solomon spent thirteen years building (bnh) and he completed (klh) the whole of his house (kol-bêtô).” There are two “houses” in view, and an emphatic contrast is made between them. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69)

The Hebrew syntax further accentuates the disparity. John W. Olley (b. 1938) discerns:

The contrast is expressed intentionally by the chiastic Hebrew sentence structure of I Kings 6:38-7:1 (obscured by the much later chapter division and further in some Bibles by a heading; there is no paragraph division in the Masoretic Text). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 86)

It is possible that the two building projects were undertaken concurrently. Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) recognizes:

The statement in our verse [I Kings 7:1], when combined with the conclusion of the previous chapter, yields the number 20, which in I Kings 9:10 is in fact the time given for the construction of the 2 ‘houses.’ But the relation between the 2 verses is hard to determine. In our opinion, Martin Noth [1902-1968] is correct when he says that the sequence of the construction: first the temple and then the palace, is improbable and that it is better to picture the construction as simultaneous. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 286)

Richard Nelson (b.1945) resolves:

There is a chronological distortion in that Kings understands the thirteen years of I Kings 7:1 to have come after the seven years of temple construction (I Kings 9:10). But by moving these buildings forward in time, sandwiching them between material on the temple and integrating them architecturally with the temple (I Kings 7:12), the narrator firmly subordinates these secular buildings to the house of the Lord. Both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the complex described in I Kings 7:6-8 are substantially larger than the temple, but have been effectively relegated to the status of interesting footnotes. They highlight Solomon’s glory without diminishing the wonder of the temple. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 45)

Some have seen the relative lengths of the projects as an indictment against the king. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) accuses:

Solomon spent much more time building his own house...than he did building God’s house. This is not surprising, because just the first of its several buildings was much bigger than the temple (I Kings 7:2; cf. I Kings 6:2). The temple had quite a bit of cedar of Lebanon in it (I Kings 6:9-10, 15-16, 18, 20, 36); this building, however, is packed with so many cedars (I Kings 7:2-3, 7, 11, 12) that it is called the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon—and this for a building apparently designed only as a treasury of armory (cf. I Kings 10:17, 21; Isaiah 22:8)! The suggestion is that the king was much more concerned about his palace than about the LORD’s temple. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Jerome T. Wash (b. 1942) elaborates:

Since the palace complex houses the central administration of the whole empire, the issue is not a simple contrast between Yahweh’s Temple and Solomon’s private residence, as if Solomon were being accused of spending all that time on his own luxury and glory. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 invites us to infer that the governmental buildings are far more important to Solomon than the religious one. In view of the ruinous annual tariff Solomon is paying Hiram [I Kings 5:11], it is quite clear which project brings Solomon to the brink of bankruptcy. (Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 106)

Backlash against Solomon has persisted for centuries. Presumably in response, Josephus (37-100) skewed his account in favor of the king. Louis H. Feldman (b. 1926) relays:

By deferring the account of the building of the palace until after the completion of his description of the dedication of the Temple, Josephus stresses the importance of the Temple and diminishes that of the palace. In I Kings 9:10 it is simply stated that it took 20 years to build the two houses, 7 years for the Temple (I Kings 6:38) and 13 years for the palace (I Kings 7:1). Josephus (Antiquities 8.30), apparently aware of the objection that Solomon devoted almost twice as much time to building his palace for his own glory as to building the Temple for the greater glory of G-d, emphasizes Solomon’s piety by adding the significant comment that the palace was not built with the same industry (ἐσπουδάζετο) with which the Temple was built. Josephus (Antiquties 8.131) adds an extra-biblical remark that the palace was much inferior in dignity (ἀξίας) to the Temple since the building materials had been prepared not so long in advance, with less expense, and was intended as a dwelling place for a king and not for G-d. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Josephus’ View of Solomon”. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 365)

Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) critiques:

Josephus and other Jewish commentators have attempted to explain the ‘offensiveness’ of this longer duration of palace construction. Among other things Josephus says (Antiquities VIII §§130ff.) that the palace was not built with the same zeal as the temple. The temple was even finished before the time appointed, since God so obviously cooperated with the builders. This was not the case with the construction of the palace, while also the material used was of an inferior quality, because the building was only intended for kings, not for God. This motive is further elaborated in later Jewish legends (cf. Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953], Legends of the Jews, IV, 155f.; VI, 294f.). The truth, of course, is that the complex of palaces was larger and more beautiful than the temple and therefore took more time. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 285-86)

Solomon also has contemporary apologists. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) exemplifies:

The conjunction “but” in I Kings 7:1 is intended to contrast the thirteen years required to build Solomon’s own house with the seven years required to build the temple (I Kings 6:38). However, what this difference implies is not clear. To some commentators it seems to condemn Solomon for spending twice as much time building his own house as he spent building the temple of God. Were worldly power and luxury already going to the young king’s head? Were secular ideals beginning to overshadow spiritual ideals in his court? It is true that in later years Solomon began to minimize the high priority he had given to serving the Lord, but that was not the case in these early years...A better interpretation of I Kings 7:1 is that Solomon purposely allowed the construction of his house to drag on for thirteen years, while he had accelerated the temple construction and finished it in seven years. Also, we must remember that many years of preparation, planning, and accumulation of materials had preceded the seven-year temple project, while the work on the palace apparently had no such head start. Furthermore, while the temple was more elaborate and intricate, the palace complex was more widespread, involving a number of separate buildings, and thereby more time-consuming. Considering these factors, Solomon probably gave priority to the temple and put more attention and time on its construction than on his palace. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 96-97)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) speculates:

Almost twice as much time is taken to build it as the temple, though that is probably not a negative judgment, given the buildings necessary for the state to function. The lack of clear detail may indicate a lack of interest (and/or knowledge) apart from highlighting Solomon as a wise builder. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 43)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) theologizes:

Commentators sometimes suggest that the time Solomon spends on his own house, nearly double the time he spends on the temple, is an early sign of his later apostasy...Yet Solomon is nowhere criticized for this. Apparently the logic is similar to the logic of the tithe: once Solomon pays his firstfruits, his time is “desanctified” so that he can devote his attention to building his own house. The objection that Solomon’s glory challenges Yahweh’s assumes a false doctrine of God. God’s glory does not compete with human glory, nor does God glorify himself by siphoning glory from his people. He glorifies himself by freely and abundantly bestowing glory, just as the Father glorifies himself in the Son through the Spirit, and the Son in the Father through the same Spirit. Yahweh gives Solomon glory, but this makes the name of Yahweh glorious among the Gentiles, precisely because it makes the name of Solomon glorious. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 60)

Regardless of what light is being cast upon Solomon, the comparative building durations of the temple and palace invite the reader to evaluate her own priorities and how those priorities are played out in her budget.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) applies:

It would be better for us to put a lower priority on a comfortable living situation and a higher priority on the kingdom of God. First Kings takes this perspective in the way it tells the story of Solomon. The major emphasis in chapters 5 through 8 is the house that Solomon built for God [I Kings 5:1-8:66]. The Bible gives us the full details of the temple’s structure and furnishings, plus a lengthy account of its dedication. Solomon’s own house took longer to build, but receives much less attention–just twelve verses for five buildings. Even for all its splendor, Solomon’s palace receives only brief mention. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, this is all it deserves, because Solomon’s house was not nearly as important as the house he built for God. By de-emphasizing Solomon’s palace, the Bible is keeping things in their proper priority. (Ryken, 1 Kings (Reformed Expository Commentary), 165)

Why do you think it took longer to build the palace than the temple? Which building project do you think is more important to Solomon? What is meant by the intentional contrast between the time spent building God’s temple and the king’s palace? How does this incongruity reflect upon Solomon? Which building do you take more pride in maintaining, your church or your residence? Do you spend more time and energy devoted to God or yourself?

“Action expresses priorities.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

The Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:2)

By what gate was the lame man begging when Peter and John met him? The Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 3:2)

After Jesus’ Ascension, the disciples continue to visit the temple (Acts 3:1). In fact, it is while going up to the temple that the first Christian miracle after Pentecost occurs, as Peter and John heal an invalid (Acts 3:1-10). The man’s condition is congenital and he has a well established routine of begging at the temple (Acts 3:2). This very specific sign is set at a particular time, 3 PM (Acts 3:1), and a precise place, the Gate Beautiful (Acts 3:2, 10).

And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple. (Acts 3:2 NASB)

The naming of the gate adds local flavor to a story whose audience would likely not have been intimately familiar with the temple. In fact the genitive clause “of the temple” is added so that those unfamiliar with the temple would understand that the Beautiful Gate was a specific temple portal.

Despite Acts’ intention of pinpointing the locale, scholars can only speculate as to which of the temple gates is in question. Though Hellenistic Jews typically used “the temple” (to hieron) to refer to the entire temple complex and reserved the names “Holy Place” and “Holy of Holies” for the temple proper, Luke-Acts does not always adhere to this distinction (Luke 2:37, 19:45). As such, the narrative’s looser terminology cannot be depended on to diagnose even whether the miracle happened in the inner or outer courts.

There is an even bigger problem in locating the gate. While “Beautiful” is a virtually universal translation of the gate’s name (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), this identifier does not occur anywhere outside of Acts (Acts 3:2, 10). The two primary sources regarding the temple’s features are Josephus [37-100] and an extensive description in the tractate Middot (m. Midd. 1:3-5). Neither refers to the Beautiful Gate but both sources do provide clues as to its identity.

Josephus tallies ten gates which serviced the temple: four along the north, four along the south and two towards the east (Bellum Judaicum 5.5.2). I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) reduces the potential candidates:

There are three possibilities: (1) The ‘Shushan’ Gate which was on the east side of the wall enclosing the whole of the temple; it gave access from outside the temple to the Court of Gentiles. (2) Within the Court of the Gentiles was the Court of Women, to which there was an access to the east side; only Israelite men and women were allowed within this court. Josephus tells us that the ‘Nicanor’ Gate (otherwise known as the Corinthian Gate, and made of bronze) was situated here, and most scholars regard this as the Beautiful Gate. (3) From the Court of Women a further gate led to the Court of Israel, into which only Jewish men were admitted. The rabbinic sources call this the Nicanor Gate, but there is some evidence that their picture of the temple is a confused one. Most scholars adopt view (2). Christian tradition from the fifth century favours...view (1), but it has been pointed out that the east gate of the temple complex would have been a poor place for collecting alms; far more people would enter the temple from the west side, direct from the city. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 87-88)

As Marshall states, traditionally the Beautiful Gate was connected with the Shushan Gate. This is problematic on several levels. Gerhard Krodel (1926-2005) demonstrates:

Christian tradition identified it with the Shushan gate, located on the east side of the Outer Court, opposite the Mount of Olives, permitting entry from Kidron Valley. Interpreters have pointed out that this gate would be a poor place to bring a lame beggar since the access is steep and most people would enter the temple area directly from the west side. (Krodel, Acts (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

Included among the “most people” who would not enter from that gate are Peter and John.

The majority of scholars favor identifying the Nicanor Gate with the Beautiful Gate. A burial inscription found on the Mount of Olives attributes its endowment to an Alexandrian Jew named Nicanor. It is uncertain when Nicanor funded the gate’s construction, but presumably post-Herod. The Mishnah records a tradition of a “miracle” associated with the gate (Tosephta Sotah 2:4).

The Nicanor Gate served as the main eastern entrance to the Court of the Gentiles, the largest and busiest of the temple courts. It also separated the Court of Gentiles from the Court of Women, the place of assembly for services. This would provide a high traffic area for the beggar and for the purposes of the story, the widest publicity for the evangelists’ actions.

Its designation as “beautiful” indicates that the gate could be easily distinguished from others and the Nicanor Gate fits that bill. Its materials were different from its peers, massive (fifty cubits high, forty wide) and featured huge double doors. According to a note in t. Yoma 2.4, “it was as beautiful as gold.”

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) explains:

Of the Temple gates Josephus writes that ‘nine were completely overlaid with gold and silver, as were also their door-posts; but one, that outside the sanctuary, was of Corinthian bronze, and far exceeded in value those plated with silver and set in gold’ (War 5.201). This gate is usually identified with the Nicanor Gate, see Middoth 2.3: ‘All the gates that were there had been changed [and overlaid] with gold, save only the doors of the Nicanor Gate, for with them a miracle...had happened; and some say, because their bronze shown like gold...This passage unfortunately is by no means clear; the gate in question may be ‘the gate between the court of the Gentiles and the court of the women, or between the court of the women and the court of the men’ (Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, 5.483). Kirsopp Lake [1872-1946]...prefers the former. But is the Nicanor, or Corinthian, Gate that which Luke means by the Beautiful Gate? The description given by both Josephus and the Rabbis seem to warrant the identification, but it is not explicit; and it is well to remember that ὡραιος does not normally mean beautiful...A traditional view is that Luke’s gate is to be identified with the Shushan Gate (so called because on it was portrayed the palace of Shushan; Middoth 1.3; Kelim 17.9), situated like the Nicanor Gate on the eastern side of the Temple...The tradition is not ancient, and the Shushan Gate was no place for a beggar to sit, since it would be used only by those entering the Temple from the Mount of Olives or from villages on the eastern side of the city and not by those who approached from the city itself. The fact is that no ancient source mentions the Beautiful Gate (even if ὡραια is a corruption of aurea, golden, we can do no better), and we do not know where it was located. The Nicanor Gate is probably the best guess (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 179-80)

Whatever gate is in question, the backdrop of the story sits in stark contrast to the man who has become a fixture at the Beautiful Gate. His was not considered a beautiful life. His nasty condition is incongruous with his opulent location where he is left to do the only thing he can: beg. The religious pilgrims might have viewed him as an eyesore to the site’s innate beauty; a beautiful gate lined with an ugly sight. In modern real estate terms, the beggar might have devalued the property.

For the unnamed beggar, the Beautiful Gate was a great spot for commerce, like a modern prostitute with the best street corner (not that I would know personally). His modern real estate appraisal of the Beautiful Gate might be summarized as, “Location, location, location.”

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) analyzes:

For several reasons the gate makes a good place to ask for them [alms]: (1) a large number of worshipers enter and exit the gate; (2) its being a gate of the temple puts the comers and goers in a religious frame of mind; and (3) charitable giving formed an important part of Jewish piety. Will Peter and John fulfill this religious obligation? (Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament)

John Phillips (b. 1927) envisions:

It was...one would hope a place of bounty. The man sat there “to ask alms of them that entered into the temple.” If there was one place more than another where an able-bodied man might be presumed to have a generous feeling towards his less fortunate neighbor, surely it would be here. We note that the beggar’s eyes were fixed on those going into the temple. On the way in, a person’s thoughts would be more sharply focused on the nature and character of God, perhaps, than on the way out. The superstitious, hoping to propitiate God and secure His goodwill, might be more disposed to drop a coin or two in the beggar’s palm. Or so the approaching worshiper might think...If a man must beg, this man or his friends seem to have chosen a good spot. (Phillips, Exploring Acts: An Expository Commentary, 66)

Giving alms was a primary component of Jewish religious life and the pilgrims would have been extremely conscious of this duty, much like a patient brushing their teeth before frequenting the dentist (Sirach 3:20, 7:10, 29:12; Tobit 1:3, 16, 2:14, 4:7-11, 12:8-9, 14:8;11, II Enoch 63:1-2; Rabbinic: Mishnah Pe’ah 1.1; Pirke Aboth 1:2; Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 4; Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 5b, 8a; Babylonian Talmud Shabbath 156b; Babylonian Talmud Rosh ha Shanah 16b; Babylonian Talmud Gittin. 7a-b.) The belief that God honors this practice carried over to Christianity (Matthew 6:2-4; Luke 11:41, 12:33; Acts 3:3, 10, 9:36,10:2, 4, 31, 24:17). While there are references to alms being asked for at synagogues (Cleomedes, De motu circulari 2.1, 91; Artemidorus, Onirocritica 3.53) there are no other texts that show that this occurred at the temple. In more than one way this episode at the Beautiful Gate is one of a kind.

What goes on at the Beautiful Gate? Why does Acts present this miracle with such a precise setting? Why does it use an otherwise unknown name to identify the location? What is the biggest contrast you have seen between a tragedy and its context? What do you find yourself begging God for? If your life situation forced you to beg to survive, where would you go to do so? Would you want to beg in a beautiful spot? Would it even matter to you? What made this gate “Beautiful”?

The gate was not only as ideal location for begging, it represented the farthest point the beggar could go as invalids were not allowed to enter the temple beyond the precinct of the Gentiles (Leviticus 21:17-20; II Samuel 5:8). Tragically, the man could stop at the gate but never enter.

Derek W.H. Thomas (b. 1953) acknowledges:

He had never walked in his entire life—but more especially, he has never walked beyond this gate into the nearer presence of God! Probably, ever since he was young, he had been utterly dependent on the kindness of others to bring him to the temple to beg. Folks like him know the kindness that religious people often show. Thus, the crippled and indigent tend to show up around churches. There was no social security or government help of any kind. They were dependent on the generosity of these worshipers in the temple. (Thomas, Acts (Reformed Expository Commentary), 69)

Though he had no access to the Holy of Holies, the beggar at the Beautiful Gate had perhaps already unknowingly encountered God incarnate depending on how long he had held this spot. A minority tradition asserts that Jesus entered the temple through the Beautiful Gate.

Though there is no record of any encounter with Jesus, the beggar encounters Christ through the disciples who house his Spirit (Acts 3:6) and on this day, the beggar receives more than he bargains for: complete healing (Acts 3:6-10).

Charles W. Koller (1896-1983) reminds:

Like Peter and John, we probably pass men and women on our way to church every Sunday whose need for help is no less real and urgent than that of the lame man at the beautiful gate. There may not be poverty or physical infirmity, but needs that lie far deeper. The most obvious need of the man was for silver and gold. His deeper needs were not mentioned as he made his appeal for alms. And it was in terms of silver and gold that people were responding. Yet this was the kind of help with which the afflicted man might well dispense if given something better. Silver and gold, he had been receiving for forty years; but it left him as he was—a helpless, hopeless cripple, carried by others, begging for alms to hold body and soul together. Silver and god, anybody could give him; but it remained for Peter and John to provide him with something better. (Koller, How to Preach Without Notes, 240)

And this “something better” may be the “beautiful” that gave the Gate its moniker. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) speculates:

Perhaps the name of the gate is more important to the Lucan account than one normally realizes. It may be the “Beautiful” Gate because of what is going to happen to the cripple in the name of Jesus Christ. Luke depicts him carried into the Temple through the gate in order to stress the symbolic change that will come into his life. (Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible), 278)

And this beautiful story all occurred because Peter an John stopped and looked, really looked, at the man who was overshadowed by the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:4).

Who do you pass en route to worship? Do you know any beggars? What, if anything, do you give them? What locations would you describe as beautiful? What locations do you associate with beautiful acts of God? What is beautiful in your life?

“The perception of beauty is a moral test.” - Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), Journal, June 21, 1852

The Silence of God (Habakkuk 2:20)

In what minor prophet does this appear: “the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silent before him”? Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:20)

The first two of Habakkuk’s three chapters consist of a dialogue between the prophet (Habakkuk 1:1-4, 1:12-2:1) and God (Habakkuk 1:5-11, 2:2-20). Habakkuk is unique in that he has the audacity to openly question the Almighty. First, the prophet is upset with God’s presumed indifference in the face of clear injustice (Habakkuk 1:2-4) and then he objects to the action God is taking (Habakkuk 1:12-2:1). God has seemingly sided with idolaters.

God responds by assuring Habakkuk that the perpetrators will face repercussions in the form of five woes (Habakkuk 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19). The discourse concludes addressing the absurdity of idolatrous worship (Habakkuk 2:18-20). God gets the final word in the conversation, reassuring:

“But the Lord is in His holy temple.
Let all the earth be silent before Him.” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB)

Contrary to popular belief and despite the apparent silence, God is in fact on the job. Yahweh is not a helpless bystander but is rather perched in a position of power ready to act.

Specifically God “is in His holy temple” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB). The temple in question likely indicates a broader spiritualized definition not limited to the Jerusalem temple (Micah 5:2).

Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) notes:

From early times the earthly sanctuary was believed to be a replica of the sanctuary of heaven. That the heavenly temple is in view here is suggested by the similar words of Psalm 11:4: “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven”...It is from his heavenly throne that “his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind” (Psalm 11:4); all human beings are therefore called upon to do him reverence. (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 876)

O. Palmer Robertson (b. 1937) defines:

The temple, from the time of its dedication by Solomon, was established as the source from which divine instruction and help would go forth. Even if God should have to chasten disobedient people, the consecrated temple would remain as the place where God would hear, forgive, and teach his people the good way (I Kings 8:36)...The temple stood in the midst of Israel as the place of his presence and his lordship among his people. The term for temple (hekal seldom describes the palace of an earthly king in Scripture. But it appears in a succession of narratives as the place from which God would rule in Israel, including the tabernacle in Shiloh (I Samuel 1:9, 3:3), Solomon’s temple (I Kings 6:1-2; etc.), Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 41:1, 4, 15); and the temple constructed after the restoration from exile (Zechariah 8:9; Haggai 2:15, 18). From a new covenant perspective, the equivalent concept is applied to the body of Jesus Christ (John 2:19), the body of the individual Christian (I Corinthians 3:16-17), and the corporate community of the Christian church (Ephesians 2:21)...The essence of the idea of the Lord’s temple may be seen in the declaration in the book of Revelation concerning the absence of the temple in the new heavens and new earth. The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will be the temple of the new Jerusalem (Revelation 22:21). The presence of God and Christ shall so permeate the final city that no need shall exist for a temple building. (Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 210-11)

The prophet’s truest encouragement comes from God’s very identity. Like Job (Job 42:1-6), Habakkuk needs to see God not only for what God does but who God is.

God’s capability is juxtaposed with the ineptitude of false idols who say and do nothing. Waylon Bailey (b. 1948) exclaims:

What a contrast! The idol sits where it is put without the ability to hear or to respond, but the Lord resides by his almighty power in his holy temple ready to respond to the needs of his people...The verse pictures the contrast between those who are no gods and the one who is in heaven ready to respond to human need and to human questions. Habakkuk himself knew from experience that he could take his questions to God’s temple in heaven. (Kenneth L. Barker [b. 1931] and Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuh, Zephaniah (The New American Commentary), 349)

James Bruckner (b. 1957) concurs:

In Habakkuk 2:19 created wood and stone are worshiped but are silent when asked for guidance. But created wood and stone will speak by Yahweh’s word (Habakkuk 2:11). They will be God’s witnesses against those who have trusted in them and made them with unjust profits, at the expense of the earth, towns, and others’ blood (Habakkuk 2:8). (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 234)

In spite all of the nation’s misfortune, God is not powerless. The idolaters have not won.

Habakkuk’s critique can be paraphrased by the question “Where are you?” The answer is that God is seated where the Almighty is supposed to be; where Yahweh has always been.

What does Habakkuk need from God? How does God respond to those needs? What do you need from God? Is it acceptable to challenge God like the prophet? Have you, like Habakkuk, ever wondered where God was amidst gross injustice? Do you believe that God is active in the world? Where do you picture God residing?

The conversation ends abruptly as, given God’s position, the text admonishes to “be silent” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT), “keep silent” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or simply “quiet” (MSG). The word (Hebrew: hacah) is actually more forceful. It is an onomatopoeic interjection that can be pronounced, in Hebrew, much like the English “Hush!”

This command is given to all the earth (Habakkuk 2:20), not just Judah (his followers). This audience includes the prophet. The question and answer portion of the program has concluded. The prophet who thought that God was silent is himself silenced by the Almighty.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

The final statement in Habakkuk 2:20 points once again to YHWH as the ultimate power of the universe by calling for silence throughout the entire earth as YHWH’s presence is manifested in the holy Temple...Such a call for silence appears also in Zephaniah 1:7, Zechariah 2:13; and Psalm 46:10, and appears to accompany a theophany in which YHWH’s presence is manifested in the Temple. Priests performing the sacrifices and other rituals of the Temple worked in silence before YHWH’s presence, indicated by the opening of the doors of the Temple to expose the Holy of Holies where the ark resided (see I Kings 8:1-11), because human voices are not able to replicate the divine speech of the angels who serve YHWH in the heavenly realm. The metaphor of silence indicates a demonstration of respect for YHWH, and coneys the “otherness” of holy divine speech by the angels who praise YHWH in the heavens. (The Twelve Prophets (Vol. 2): Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam), 478)

David Prior (b. 1940) denotes the fitting conclusion:

Habakkuk 2:20’s imperious summons to silence in the presence of the one true God is an apt conclusion to the questioning of the prophet, the agonizing of the people and the chattering of the pagans before their idols. It also marks the only appropriate way to respond to the LORD’s pronunciation of five woes on Babylon. There is nothing more to say or be said. In the light of God’s word of judgment, it is right that ‘every mouth...be stopped’ (Romans 3:19). (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 260)

Ironically, the command to silence evokes praise. Though a gap (in which the prophet could reflect in silence) may exist between chapters 2 and 3, the book continues and concludes with a psalm of praise (Habakkuk 3:1-19) addressed to the Lord who saves his people (Habakkuk 3:13). Habakkuk’s final chapter sits in stark contrast to the book’s first two units, evidence that God’s affirmation has had a profound effect on the prophet.

Habakkuk 2:20 marks the bridge from despair to praise. James D. Newsome (b. 1931) pinpoints:

The whole of the psalm in Habakkuk 3 resonates to the nature of God as a transcendent and awe-inspiring Deity. But there is a special sense in which Habakkuk 2:20 has communicated to generations of Jews and Christians the reverence and respect due to God, especially in moments of worship. (Newsome, The Hebrew Prophets, 99)

Do you find God’s words to Habakkuk assuring (Habakkuk 2:2-20)? Has God ever converted your complaints into worship? Why does God silence Habakkuk? Is there a place for silence in communal worship? When are you silent before God?

“Silent solitude makes true speech possible and personal. If I am not in touch with my own belovedness, then I cannot touch the sacredness of others. If I am estranged from myself, I am likewise a stranger to others.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging, p. 58

Anna’s Anticipation (Luke 2:36)

Who was the widow who recognized Jesus when he was presented as the temple? Anna (Luke 2:36)

At the time of Jesus’ birth, few recognized that he would be the instrument of Israel’s redemption. Though the infant does nothing demonstrable, when Jesus is presented at the temple (Luke 2:22-24), two great witnesses emerge: Simeon (Luke 2:25-32) and Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The early witness of these elders is often overlooked when recounting Jesus’ life, even being omitted from the 2006 movie The Nativity Story.

Anna is not referenced in any other book of the Bible, much less extrabiblical materials. Though her story constitutes only three verses, Anna gets the last word in Luke’s infancy narrative (Luke 2:36-38).

And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38 NASB)

Even as an infant, Jesus’ mission is recognized. Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) summarizes:

The truth of Simeon’s prophetic witness is confirmed by Anna, a devout prophetess of advanced age...Being a woman with the gift of prophecy who lives in the temple area continually in prayer and fasting, she...comes to the scene precisely where and when Jesus is being presented. She thanks God and witnesses about the child to all who have kept alive hope for “the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). Jerusalem and with it the temple represent the whole of Israel’s hope before God. And Jesus will return to Jerusalem because, as these two have testified, God is leading Israel to the Messiah, just as God is giving the Messiah to Israel. But Jesus will weep over the city because it did not recognize the time of the messianic visitation (Luke 19:41-44). (Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 40)

Balancing a male witness with a female counterpart is characteristic of Luke. Neal M. Flanagan (1920-1985) identifies 13 man-woman parallel stories in Luke’s gospel (Flanagan, “The Position of Women in the Writings of St. Luke”, Mareanum 40, 288-304). In Luke-Acts, women are paired with men even when, as in the case of Anna (Luke 2:36-38) and Philip’s four prophetess daughters mentioned alongside Agabus (Acts 21:9-11), they add nothing to what has been said.

Both Simeon and Anna are models of piety and devotion (Luke 2:25, 36-37) making Anna a reliable corroborating witness. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) compares:

As a counterpart to Simeon, Luke introduces Anna. Both are prophetic figures (cf. Acts 2:17-18), aged, pious, related to the temple, and among those who await eschatological salvation. And both recognize in Jesus the advent of God’s redemptive intervention in the world, with the result that they praise God. In this way, Anna’s testimony is added to that of the angels (Luke 2:10-14) and Simeon (Luke 2:28-35), who respond to the wondrous child by praising God and interpreting the significance of Jesus’ coming. Focusing as they all do on God and on eschatological hope, however, they bear witness to Luke’s interest in a narrative aim that transcends the birth and manifestation of Jesus. Luke is concerned preeminently with the redemptive purposes of God, grounded ultimately in God’s own designs, expressed in the Scriptures, anticipated by the faithful of Israel, now coming to fruition in the arrival of Jesus. In the present scene, Luke actually devotes more time to emphasizing Anna’s reliability than to her reaction, a further attempt to render unimpeachable her testimony concerning Jesus. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 150)

As Green alludes, Luke provides a striking amount of information about Anna. Though the gospel does not specify what she actually said, more introduction is given her than Simeon.

Anna’s comprehensive resume includes the following details:

• She is a woman. Anna appears only in Luke and among the gospels, Luke pays special attention to women (43 references).
• She is a prophetess. Though she is the only woman in the gospels described as a prophetess, the description is not uncommon in Scripture (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; II Kings 22:14; Nehemiah 6:14; Luke 2:35; Acts 2:17, 21:8-9; I Corinthians 11:5).
• She is named Anna. In the Apocrypha, this is the name of Tobit’s wife (Tobit 1:9, 20, 2:1, 11-14, 4:3-4, 5:18-6:1, 10:4-7, 11:5-6, 9, 14:12). The name is the female equivalent of John (Johannah) and the Greek version of the Hebrew, Hannah. Despite being Biblical the name was not popular during the Second Temple period. Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) notes, “Of the 247 Jewish women in Palestine from the period 330 BCE-200 CE, whose names are known, our Anna is the only one who bears this name (Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 92).” In Jewish tradition, her namesake Hannah is also considered a prophetess (b. Meg 14a). As both women are depicted as praying in the temple and there are similarities between the presentations of Jesus and Hannah’s son Samuel (I Samuel 1:22-24; Luke 2:22), many have seen an intentional allusion. As Anna is “looking for the redemption of Israel” (Luke 2:38 NASB), both the barren Hannah and Anna are praying for miracle babies.
• She is the daughter of Phanuel. Phanuel is otherwise unknown and the only other biblical figure with this name is equally obscure (I Chronicles 4:4). Phanuel is not important enough to be listed anywhere else and as such, being the daughter of Phanuel was of no great consequence. The name Phanuel is the equivalent of place name Peniel (Genesis 32:31-32). As both Anna and her father have Biblical names, it can be deduced that she comes from a godly heritage. Anna inherits a spiritual legacy and builds upon it.
• She is from the tribe of Asher. This detail likely seemed as remote then as it does now as Asher was one of the ten “lost” northern tribes of Israel (Genesis 30:12-13, 35:26) which settled in northern Gilead (Joshua 19:24-31). Anna retains her ancestral heritage. In fact, she is not referenced in connection to her deceased husband, but rather to her people to whom she presumably has a stronger connection. Given that she waited for decades in the temple it is not surprising that Anna can trace her genealogy. Most have attached no significance to the connection to Asher as Luke is typically more interested in symbolism than geography (whom his audience would not have known). In his article “Anna of the Tribe of Asher”, however, Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) argues that the original audience would have understood Anna as a returnee from the exile of the northern tribes in Media. Others have seen this reference as alluding to the restoration of all of the tribes of Israel. Asher is one of the least significant tribes and this coupled with her unsubstantial father may collectively speak to humble origins, like Gideon (Judges 6:15). The world would have viewed Anna’s heritage as insignificant, a fact which was equally insignificant to God.
• She is elderly. Her age is emphasized by redundancy in Greek which reads “she was very old in her many days” or “she was exceedingly old and full of years”. In her culture, her agedness would have merited respect. The text is ambiguous regarding her exact age. It could mean that she was eighty-four or that she has been a widow for eighty-four years. The more natural way to interpret the syntax is the latter (Darrell L. Bock [b. 1953], Luke [BECNT], 1:251-52; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], Luke [NIGTC], 123-24). If this is the case, and she was married at the standard age of 14, she would have been 105 years old. This fits both the improbable nature of the nativity and Luke’s emphasis on her agedness and would also connect her to Judith, another widow who served God night and day (Judith 8:1-8, 11:17) and lived to be 105 years old (Judith 16:23). Either way, Anna is at least 84. One is never too old to serve or experience God in dramatic fashion. In Anna’s case, her greatest contribution comes at the end of her life.
• She is a widow. Three widows are featured in Luke’s gospel (Luke 2:36-38, 7:11-15, 21:1-4) and the evangelist also includes a widow as the star of a parable (Luke 18:1-8). A later description of Christian widows shares marked similarities with the description of Anna (I Timothy 5:3-16). Tragically, Anna’s husband died just seven years into their marriage (Luke 2:37). She presumably had no children and chose not to remarry. Instead, she devoted herself to God. When faced with tragedy, one has the choice to move closer or farther away from God. Instead of getting bitter, Anna got better.
• She never leaves the temple. Serving “night and day” reflects the Jewish belief that the day began at sunset (Deuteronomy 28:66; I Kings 8:29; Isaiah 27:3; Jeremiah 14:17; Mark 5:5; Luke 2:37; Acts 20:31, 26:7; I Thessalonians 2:9, 3:10; II Thessalonians 3:8; I Timothy 5:5; II Timothy 1:3). It is theoretically possible that she resides in the temple’s women’s court but there is no precedent for this arrangement. Like the English expression “all of the time”, Luke is most likely using hyperbole as women were not normally allowed to stay in temple at night. Widows were typically poor and practically speaking, the temple may have been the best place for Anna. Then again, perhaps her devotion and expectation were such that she never leaves the temple precincts. Whatever her reasons, she is a fixture at the temple. Luke likely intends to accent her piety. Later tradition asserts that Mary herself was raised in the temple (Protoevangelium of James 7:1-8:2). Depending upon one’s perspective, Anna is living a life of worship or is a religious fanatic. Either way, Anna has found her niche. Though no priest notices the baby Jesus, someone associated with organized religion takes notice and though Anna could not go into the Holy of Holies she sees God in person.
• She fasts and prays. These are classic expressions of piety. Fasting coupled with prayer is evidence of self-denying focus (Psalm 35:13; Daniel 9:3; Tobit 12:8, Matthew 17:21; Luke 2:37). As the third traditional good work of almsgiving is not mentioned, some have deduced that Anna was poor, fitting her status as a widow. Some interpreters suggest that the story of the widow’s mite near the end of Luke’s gospel (Luke 21:1-4) is best read while remembering the poor widow at the gospel’s outset (Luke 2:36-38). Anna likely prays for “the redemption of Israel”. This expression comes from Isaiah 52:9 and a similar phrase was used on Jewish coins in Bar-Kokhba’s Jewish revolt against Rome (132-136 CE).

Luke stresses Anna’s age and single minded devotion. Anna does not lead a very complicated life. She never goes anywhere. Her singular focus is the service and worship of God. She is part of the remnant that is still actively seeking the Messiah. Anna is a throwback to a bygone era whose unwavering faith is likely as rare as being from her long lost tribe.

Jane J. Parkerton (b. 1946), K. Jeanne Person (b. 1962) and Anne Winchell Silver (b. 1948) examine:

Why is she there? What does she seek? What is it about the life and worship of the Temple that sustain her?...On a practical level, we might understand Anna’s proximity to the Temple as her only means for daily survival. Because she has no husband or child, and because she is elderly, she is among the most economically vulnerable of her society. She is no longer physically able to glean the agricultural fields for leftover grains and fruits, as poor widows were legally permitted to do in order not to starve. Her life may depend on alms she might receive from pilgrims visiting the temple...Anna’s story, however, is not manifestly about a widow’s economic destruction and helplessness. In this, her story differs from many about widows in the Bible...We have no sense that Anna is impoverished, anxious or desperate...She seems to be yearning for something that is not practical at all. (Parkerton, Person and Silver, Where You Go, I Shall: Gleanings from the Stories of Biblical Widows, 71-72)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

In some deep sense, Jesus is an answer to the prayers of Anna, even as to those of Simeon. Arriving on the scene precisely at the moment of Simeon’s prayer she acts as what dramaturgists call “fifth business”; in her words she not only gives thanks to God but Luke adds, like the shepherds, also immediately begins to spread the good word “to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 48)

In painting this picture of Anna, Luke has given his witness credibility. Just as Simeon’s piety give him tenability to make an important pronouncement (Luke 2:25) so does Anna’s character make her a reliable spokesperson. In someways, it is not surprising that the supergodly woman recognizes God when she sees the baby Jesus.

In doing so, Anna carries out her prophetic role. While angels announce Jesus’ coming to Zechariah (Luke 1:11), Mary (Luke 1:26) and the shepherds (Luke 2:9), Anna does so for holy city (Luke 2:38).

Are you a credible witness? Which of the details that Luke uses to describe Anna most defines her? Who do you know who is devout like Anna? Who do you know with great spiritual insight? For whose benefit is Anna’s prophecy? How do you think that her prophecy was received? Did anyone even notice? Compare and contrast Simeon and Anna; are they more alike or different? How does Anna know Jesus is the one she has been seeking?

Simeon and Anna recognize Jesus in part because they are looking for him. They live in a state of perpetual hope. The persevering elderly duo never give up. How many babies must Anna have seen in all of those decades at the temple? Yet, after all that time, she waits expectantly.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) applauds:

Mary and Joseph needed Simeon and Anna at that moment; the old man and old woman needed them, had been waiting for them, and now thanked God for them. (Wright, Luke for Everyone, 27)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) adds:

Simeon and Anna represented all who saw that their only hope was in the mercy and grace of God. Along with the poor carpenter and his wife and the outcast shepherds, they were flesh-and-blood examples of those to whom Christ comes. They personified the paradox of being profoundly empty and profoundly full — “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6). They longed for righteousness and consolation that would come only through the Messiah. They came to God’s house hungry, and they received as few others have in the history of the world...Lives like these are rare. Such longing is not in vogue today. (Hughes, Luke (Volume 1): That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 95)

Waiting is often one of the marks of the faithful. Henri J.M. Nouwen (1932-1996) notes, “Waiting...became the attitude of only the remnant of Israel, of that small group of Israelites that had remained faithful (Nouwen, Finding My Way Home: Pathways to Life and the Spirit, 95).”

Simeon and Anna are emblematic of the patient faithful. Like today, though the remnant may have dwindled, people are still expecting the Messiah to come.

Is anticipation a necessary component of faith? What, if anything, are you currently anticipating? Do we long for Jesus as Anna does?

“We possess the past by memory and the future by anticipation” - Paul Tillich (1886-1965), The Shaking of the Foundations, p. 35